Support NeoGAF

[SHA]

Not really, this is just what they want to create.

They don't want to create a sandbox mission structure, where you can do anything and it can result in varying states of mission failure or success.

They want to create a cinematic experience, with set missions that play out how they directed it.
The open world is just a backdrop for their missions at this point.

Which is why I don't understand the criticism, like people (or snakeyjakey or whoever that fuck on the ball is) give that their mission design is outdated.

Outdated compared to which other open world game exactly? It's not an RPG with multiple mission outcomes. And it will never be.

Just like making movies, nothing groundbreaking.

 

[MMaRsu]

I told you I'm not doing this song and dance. You can look at the Starfield review thread for the positives and negatives. You can look on youtube for even more opinions and comparisons if you want. CohhCarnage gave a fairly level-headed opinion of his time with the game and had one of the best bottom-line statements ever said about it.

I'm not here to derail this into yet another Starfield thread and feed into more copium about the game. It is an alright game, but not a great game, and that's okay. My point was that Bethesda should not be releasing 'just okay' games at this point in time. Especially not after 8 years or more of dev time put into it(5 or more years if you technically count F76).

Yeah I already thought you weren't gonna give me even a single example. I haven't actually seen a single example of why Fallout 4 is better, in any review I've read.

Regardless what you think of the game, it's better than Fallout 4 in every way possible. I'm not going on Youtube for opinions and comparisons.

I'm in a thread having a discussion with you on a forum where its all about discussion.

Derailing the thread when the OP is a garbled mess nobody can make sense of is besides the point. I was just using Bethesda as a company that creates the experiences they do, for better or worse.

 

[MMaRsu]

Not do whatever, but to create actually cohesive systems that can be depend upon. Not just context sensitive one-off mechanics that you can never use in any other instance.

• Calling the police to distract them so you can infiltrate another mission location.
• Use social media if you need a specific character to assassinate.
• Follow the ambulance car when he drives into the hospital so you can sneak if after it, if the player needs te be inside.

Etc.
Receive a objective and let the player play around the the simulated systems to figure out a way.

Games like Watch-dogs 2 or MGS5 made great strides in achieving the creative problem solving route in a Open-world settings with cohesive simulated systems. To me, that's way more engaging then: 'watch cutscene -> follow waypoint -> randomly get into gunfight that the story demands -> watch cutscene.' It's mind numbingly boring design. The fantasy of Grand Theft Auto wasn't 'doing scripted missions', it's 'playing around in a reactive world and making a interesting mess'

Don't get me wrong, I love good storytelling in games and watching cutscenes now and again, but I -as the player- would rather solve the problem myself using the mechanics and tools given, instead of letting the game solve the problem for me, and making me feel like a actor moving into place without reading the script beforehand. I think there is a clever middle ground that is still untapped that can progress their design and inspire other designers/studios.

Those are cool ideas, and I agree with you there.

MGS V is actually a sandbox game, whereas GTA V is not.

Just like making movies, nothing groundbreaking.

Well yeah I never said their games are groundbreaking. But they don't have a direct competitor who does it better either.

 

[March Climber]

I'm in a thread having a discussion with you on a forum where its all about discussion.

Derailing the thread when the OP is a garbled mess nobody can make sense of is besides the point. I was just using Bethesda as a company that creates the experiences they do, for better or worse.

I'm not trying to dissuade general discussion, I'm trying to keep us on track discussion-wise. I don't want to do a back and forth here about Fallout 4 vs Starfield when that has nothing to do with my larger point, which was this:

Starfield is an alright game, but not a great game, and that's okay. My point was that Bethesda should not be releasing 'just okay' games at this point in time. Especially not after 8 years or more of dev time put into it(5 or more years if you technically count F76).

 

[Moses85]

 

[SportsFan581]

I'm not sure what you want from them exactly. I think they have proven to be very proficient when it comes to graphics, in terms of new releases. RDR2 is still very impressive to me, and look at when they released that.

They don't work nearly as hard on updating the older games as some other studios, which is odd since they are making more dollars than most of the other studios from the older games. I'd say Capcom takes the prize in this area, at least recently. The updates they do for new generations are impressive and generally free to existing owners, you can't ask for more than that.

As far as game play, there will always be things that players think could have been better or should have been included/cut. Obviously, something in the GTA V loop kept players interested since it is still played as much as it is.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Truth is RS could charge $199 for GTAVI with a monthly online fee, score a meta of 50 and people would still buy it and defend them ferociously.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

They "pushing money forward", not gaming, didn't get the memo ?

​

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

AAA pushes gaming forward when they identify a worthy trend in the indie space and bring it to the masses.

 

[Victor Omega]

Yeah I already thought you weren't gonna give me even a single example. I haven't actually seen a single example of why Fallout 4 is better, in any review I've read.

Regardless what you think of the game, it's better than Fallout 4 in every way possible. I'm not going on Youtube for opinions and comparisons.

I'm in a thread having a discussion with you on a forum where its all about discussion.

Derailing the thread when the OP is a garbled mess nobody can make sense of is besides the point. I was just using Bethesda as a company that creates the experiences they do, for better or worse.

I'm not trying to dissuade general discussion, I'm trying to keep us on track discussion-wise. I don't want to do a back and forth here about Fallout 4 vs Starfield when that has nothing to do with my larger point, which was this:

 

[elmos-acc]

GTA VI will probably be the most criticized game of all time when it releases. Rockstar does not have the same luxury it had in 2013, when GTA V came out and did everything people missed about GTA IV.

But the public opinion has gone sour on the Shark Card casino. RDR2 is a masterpiece and ridiculously high quality product, but it's not fun like GTA. It's not trying to be GTA with horses like maybe RDR1 kinda was.

So after a decade of waiting and our cultural and social landscape being what it is, everyone will have an opinion about GTA VI. If it is not literally miles ahead of every other game releasing in this decade, people will pick it apart until the end of time. TLOU2 and Cyberpunk controversies will be small things compared to it.

 

[THE DUCK]

Considering how well gta has done, it's kind of surprising ms or Sony haven't created thier own similar game. I mean it's not like Rockstar owns the rights to open world games set in cities with crime and a story.

Real crime: Episode 1
Or
Undercover adventure
Or
Speed and crime: Los Angeles

 

[Sonik]

Rockstar has been making the same game for 20 years now, go there kill that guy, go there follow that guy then kill him, go there hunt that guy kill him. It's the most overrated dev in the industry and the only thing that it updates is the graphics and the themes/presentation of their games, the gameplay and open world remain the same after 20 fucking years and hoinestly the former was never something special.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

No one single developer should bear the burden of pushing the entire industry forward. That's a fucking puerile thing to levy against any one dev.

Every AAA dev contributes to the forward advancement of the industry in terms of innovation with each unique and novel feature they include in their games. This has been true for Rockstar just as much as any other major developer.

The advancement of the gaming medium is a collective endeavor and certainly not something anyone should hold any single developer accountable for. Doing so would be holding up an unreasonable, impossible standard. It's dumb... and it forgets that the primary function of a videogame is not the creative advancement of the medium; rather it's to simply delight and entertain its users.... it's as simple as that.

 

[Pimpbaa]

Arguably PS4 to PS5 was the biggest leap graphically if we count The Matrix demo.

No where near the jump from previous generations. Was an impressive demo, but not THAT impressive (especially with the lack of hdr). To have fancy new ray traced lighting and not have hdr to show it off is baffling.

 

[Warablo]

Go load up GTA V or RDR 2. Some of the best worlds and atmosphere and detail ever created. They also have some crazy real time ragdoll physics.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

I don't even know what this topic is trying to say, but how can you actually be a gamer, in 2018 and playing something like Red Dead Redemption 2 and say "yeah these guys aren't doing anything new"?

If someone like Rockstar isn't pushing gaming forward, no one else is. That's all.

 

[bitbydeath]

No where near the jump from previous generations. Was an impressive demo, but not THAT impressive (especially with the lack of hdr). To have fancy new ray traced lighting and not have hdr to show it off is baffling.

Got any examples from previous gens?
The Order 1886 would be close but I don’t think it is as good as the leap to The Matrix.

 

[cripterion]

Thats because people let their expectations get to their heads, and some overhyped it to hell and back. Its a better game than their previous game in every way possible.

Oh like this person ?

You're delusional if you think Starfield is better than their previous games.
Well I guess to you it is and that's fine... But wake up and smell the roses.

 

[MMaRsu]

Oh like this person ?



You're delusional if you think Starfield is better than their previous games.
Well I guess to you it is and that's fine... But wake up and smell the roses.

Please tell me in what ways Fallout 4 is better, nobody has actually answered me on that.

Fallout 4 is a turd by the way, so yes.

 

[thekillergreece]

Rockstar Games is known to make GTA games, but not much else. Yes, they made Bully but just one. Yes, they made RDR2 but that's the second different game they made within the 1.5 decade. It's just mostly GTA games they make.
Which would be fine if they were actually unique. They aren't. GTAV's map is half-empty (wilderness and county provide nothing), and the gameplay is a lot arcade-ish and toned down. The story can be quite far too long than it should be and most if not every mission is designed to be completed in very specific methods the Rockstar Games wanted YOU to do. GTA and RDR games are essentially like movies for me to watch and the mission design is do A and B.

This is in contrast to other widely mocked "GTA-clone" games such as Watch Dogs or even Mafia.
In Mafia 2, you can get cops to attack mission enemies while you do nothing.
In WD2, you have lots of tools to complete a mission. For example, drones, hacks, framing NPCs for the police to arrive and so on. There were many times when I could complete missions without even shooting and killing.

In GTA, you don't have that luxury, you HAVE to kill because the game told you to do so and will force you to do so if you don't.
Yes, they build beautiful worlds with details, there's nothing to deny about that. But, there are also plenty of game companies who also design their world beautifully such as CD Projekt's Night City. Hangar 13's Lost Heaven is nice too. We also got to see San Francisco (Watch Dogs 2) as well as a futuristic London (Watch Dogs Legion). I might be missing some names now. GTA has been stuck with repetitive versions of Liberty City, San Andreas and now the upcoming Vice City. Rockstar Games isn't unique in any way and has flaws just like every other company.

Furthermore, while Rockstar Games was stuck with GTAV for a decade, other game companies moved the gaming in their own ways and crafted unique elements in their own games.

As for Bethesda's games, at least they fully support modding I guess.

 

[MMaRsu]

Rockstar Games is known to make GTA games, but not much else. Yes, they made Bully but just one. Yes, they made RDR2 but that's the second different game they made within the 1.5 decade. It's just mostly GTA games they make.
Which would be fine if they were actually unique. They aren't. GTAV's map is half-empty (wilderness and county provide nothing), and the gameplay is a lot arcade-ish and toned down. The story can be quite far too long than it should be and most if not every mission is designed to be completed in very specific methods the Rockstar Games wanted YOU to do. GTA and RDR games are essentially like movies for me to watch and the mission design is do A and B.

This is in contrast to other widely mocked "GTA-clone" games such as Watch Dogs or even Mafia.
In Mafia 2, you can get cops to attack mission enemies while you do nothing.
In WD2, you have lots of tools to complete a mission. For example, drones, hacks, framing NPCs for the police to arrive and so on. There were many times when I could complete missions without even shooting and killing.

In GTA, you don't have that luxury, you HAVE to kill because the game told you to do so and will force you to do so if you don't.
Yes, they build beautiful worlds with details, there's nothing to deny about that. But, there are also plenty of game companies who also design their world beautifully such as CD Projekt's Night City. Hangar 13's Lost Heaven is nice too. We also got to see San Francisco (Watch Dogs 2) as well as a futuristic London (Watch Dogs Legion). I might be missing some names now. GTA has been stuck with repetitive versions of Liberty City, San Andreas and now the upcoming Vice City. Rockstar Games isn't unique in any way and has flaws just like every other company.

Furthermore, while Rockstar Games was stuck with GTAV for a decade, other game companies moved the gaming in their own ways and crafted unique elements in their own games.

As for Bethesda's games, at least they fully support modding I guess.

The only really good game is Mafia 2, Ubisofts games have horrible driving physics, every npc in Watch Dogs Legion have the same voices, the cities are barely alive and function as nothing more than set dressing.

Sure you have more freedom in missions, but I played WD Legion and it was crap. Shooting spongy enemies because the game is meant for coop.

Night City is an amazing city to look at, but there also it feels empty. Nothing happens, npc's walk past eachother but never have any conversations with eachother, no interactivity. A beautiful backdrop for the missions, with barely any side content thats interesting.

In gta V you can at least go hunting, in those boring areas you mentioned (the nature and country).

The reason why there is so much nature is because its not just a city, its a state they made. Just a city and no nature is boring to me.